V-Tri Realty Inc. vs. Augusto M. Gomez

[SEC-SICD * CASE NO. 02-97-5549. January 26, 1998.] V-TRI REALTY INC. , petitioner , vs . AUGUSTO M. GOMEZ , respondent . D E C I S I O N This is a petition to revive judgment under Section 7 of Rule XIV of the 1994 Revised Rules of Procedure . TcaAID The Petition was filed on February 5, 1997. It alleged that on March 10, 1987, this Honorable Commission promulgated a decision in SEC Case No. 2573 the full text of which is hereto marked as Exhibit "A". This decision has not been amended, repealed and or reversed in whole or in part and has become final and executory but since it is more than (5) years after it was promulgated and was not implemented, this judgment has become stale and is now the subject of this case for revival. This petition was initiated by V Tri Realty, a corporation under liquidation by this Commission and being represented by the current Liquidator ARISTON GOMEZ, JR. Augusto Gomez, the herein Respondent in this petition was served with the summons on February 18, 1997 but failed to answer. He was declared in default on July 9, 1997. Petitioner was allowed to present its evidence ex parte, and it presented both oral and documentary evidence and after which, the case was deemed submitted for decision. The only issue to be resolved is whether there is basis, factual or legal to revive the decision in SEC Case No. 2573. This Commission is of judicial notice that the SEC decision in SEC Case No. 2573 was promulgated on 10 March 1987. This decision remains undisturbed, and is not amended recalled or superseded by any other order or decision, in whole or in part. This Petition to revive decision was filed after five (5) years but within 10 years after its promulgation. Under 1994 SEC Rules of Procedure , this decision may be enforced by action. this Section 7, provides: "SECTION 7. Execution by Motion or by Independent Action . A judgment may be executed on motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry or from the date it becomes final and executory. After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the statute of limitation, a judgment may be enforced by action". This Hearing Officer finds merit in the instant petition. The facts are uncontroverted and supported by the records of the case on file in this Commission. The only action contemplated in the above provision Rule XIV Section 7, is one for revival of judgment and not an action based on the original controversy decided upon with finality. The action for a revival of judgment is a new and independent action wherein in the cause of action is the judgment itself and not the merits of the action upon which the judgment sought to be enforced is rendered. The issue is only to revive the judgment and not to re-examine, re-try or pass upon the cause of action in the original complaint for this we found to be in order. The action for this revival of a judgment is a real action and must therefore be brought in the same forum or court where the judgment is rendered and that to establish uniformity the same should be filed and decided in this Commission with the procedures akin to an ordinary civil action. After the lapse of the aforesaid 5-year period, the decision is reduced to a mere right of action as all other ordinary action by the institution of a complaint in regular form (Umali vs. Judge Coquia, G.R. No. L-46303, May 9, 1988). IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, there is nothing amiss, legal and factual, to revive the decision rendered in SEC Case No. 2573 and to afford it with the same faith and terms as stated therein. IHSTDE SO ORDERED. (SGD.) SILVINO T. PAMPILO, JR. Hearing Officer